Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Big mega coorporation smashes small indi developer

Author
Message
Antidote
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Mar 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 04:31
Link
Most of you if you know what Dance Dance Revolution is, really don't know anything about it. I will admit that I am an avid player of dance games and have been involved with various communites for over 2 years.

Another dance game called in the groove was developed by an independent company and compared to Dance Dance Revolution is a superior game although largely based on DDR. Konami designed DDR.

About a year ago Konami sued the company that made in the groove (Roxor) and as of today have won. It's a sad day since all future projects have been cancelled.

So Here is an example of a large coorporation crushing a smaller independent developer. Things like this make me wonder how smaller companies even have a shot of getting to the point where the large coorporations can't just destroy them.

Discuss.



Back to top
Profile PM
Mnemonix
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2002
Location: Skaro
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 04:35
Link
To be perfectly honest, they probably violated copyright laws making their product, thats why they got sued. Its their own fault if they can't watch out for that.

WE SHALL BECOME ALL POWERFUL! CRUSH THE LESSER RACES! CONQUER THE GALAXY! UNIMAGINABLE POWER! UNLIMITED RICE PUDDING ! ! ! ETC. ! ! ! ETC.! ! !
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Steam Assassin
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2005
Location: behind you...
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 04:35
Link
I would just challenge Konami to a dance-off.


I used to have one of those signs, but then realized how annoying it was...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Antidote
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Mar 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 04:48
Link
Konami challenged them for intellectual property rights. Roxor didn't have the resources to try and defend themselves so they settled and because of this Roxor can no longer create ITG.



Back to top
Profile PM
Cash Curtis II
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Apr 2005
Location: Corpus Christi Texas
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 04:53
Link
This is why creating original games the smart thing for independent developers to do.


Come see the WIP!
Back to top
Profile PM
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 05:10
Link
Massive corporations do this sort of thing all the time. EA is, in this industry anyway, easily the guiltiest party when it comes to eating up indie studios (and wiping them out). Some of these companies, like Westwood, didn't/ don't mind in the least... getting bought out by a huge company like EA means your studio will have far more resources at their disposal. But some companies, namely Dice, fought the takeover with every ounce of energy they had in them, and when they lost, a lot of the studios' key creators walked away. There really isn't much an indie company can do to fight off a massive corporation as they have legal departments that are harder than a coffin nail. But there's a few steps an indie studio can take to prevent a takeover (but nothing is garaunteed):

* Don't be a Corporation: If you don't sell shares, you can't be taken over... simple as that. Selling shares is a great way to drive up capital to produce a title, but you're running the risk of being purchased by a larger corporation the very instant you do it. If you're a solo developer, file your company as a sole proprietorship. If you and a friend (or a few friends) own the business, file it as a partnership. If you decide to go corporate, make it a limited liability corporation (LLC), and DO NOT sell shares publically... but there's loopholes in doing that. Just ask the guys who *used* to own Dice.

* Don't replicate a popular title: As Mnem pointed out, this company probably infringed on a copyright, trademark, or patent. Once you do something like that, you foreit the right to be surprised when the company who owns said rights sues the pants off of you.

* Don't sign deals with major publishers: If you really don't want to run the risk of being taken over, don't sign up with major publishers like EA, Ubi, etc. This is a double-edged sword: you're far less likely to be "acquired" if you don't sign, but on the other hand, you're even further less likely to accumulate great hordes of wealth without said deals in play. Unless you're a brilliant marketing strategist and the product is breathtaking to the mass market, your only real option (if you're going after zillions of dollars/ pounds) is to sign with one of these corporations.

This isn't to say you can't be successful in the indie market without signing to a big corporate entity... while you could possibly carve out a decent (humble) living for yourself, I don't think many would disagree with me when I say that your chances of becoming a multi-millionaire are extremely low. But I'm not saying it's impossible... nothing is really impossible


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Sid Sinister
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2005
Location:
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 05:10
Link
Quote: "I would just challenge Konami to a dance-off"


LOL
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 08:08
Link
Quote: "EA is, in this industry anyway, easily the guiltiest party when it comes to eating up indie studios (and wiping them out)."


Didn't we discuss this before and you didn't provide an ounce of proof that EA does anything different than any other company that buys out small developers?

Quote: "But some companies, namely Dice, fought the takeover with every ounce of energy they had in them, and when they lost, a lot of the studios' key creators walked away. There really isn't much an indie company can do to fight off a massive corporation as they have legal departments that are harder than a coffin nail. But there's a few steps an indie studio can take to prevent a takeover (but nothing is garaunteed):"


Rofl. They fought *sooo* hard If this "indie" company goes public, then as far as I'm concerned they're not "indie" in the real sense. Do you consider companies like Ubisoft indie? Why not? They're a publically traded developer after all. If they go public and are bought out, it's their own damn fault for not keeping 50% + 1 share. The only people I feel bad for are employees that get displaced, but everyone knows that for example the Dice employees in Canada were offered placement at various EA branches. Do some more research, as it looks like this is all opinion and no fact.

Quote: "Selling shares is a great way to drive up capital to produce a title, but you're running the risk of being purchased by a larger corporation the very instant you do it."


What!??! That couldn't be more untrue. Like I said before, if you retain 50% + 1 share, then EA can buy 49.9% of your company and doesn't "own" the company. Plus if you're not a corp, then you're personally responsible for debt. This is one of the reasons why Introversion in the UK converted to a corp so the company would assume the debt and not its employees. But you didn't see them instantly snatched up, because they're most likely smart and know when to stop selling shares.

Pure propaganda, but I really can't expect anything less from you, Matt


http://www.codercafe.com - My blog
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 09:45
Link
Quote: "Plus if you're not a corp, then you're personally responsible for debt."


only to 50,000 Credit, the rest is wiped out with a bankruptcy notice. in-fact there are legal loop holes around debt as a whole with companies.
hense why they're called Limited Liability.

It's Corporations where the Directors are 100% responsible for the debt.

Yes, the share system works with majority control. i.e. you need to have 50% + 1 Share to have majority (default for Ltd/LLC is 50 base shares, but you can issues as many or little as you choose the rest are known as sleeper shares that can only be issued by the Secutary)

This is true for all companies. However because shares aren't public for limited it makes buy-outs of that nature to be close to unheard of. (possible but not very likely)
Most likely choice for other companies to perform a buy-out is to get an exclusive contract then offer a settlement. This is exactly how EA work when purchasing a company.

They offer a company enough money so they're working only for them, then they offer more to become part of the corporation. It makes the directors VERY rich people. So I'd hardly say anyone looses out unless the corporation decides to close it down and strip the resources. This in itself only happens if they believe that the company isn't profitable as-is.

In which case it's the best solution, the employees keep their jobs and the company which was going under in the first place stays "open" might be under a different name, but still going.

Matt, before you start bad mouthing how the business world works. Perhaps you might want to actually bother taking the time to find out HOW it works. It's only Corporation to Corporation when business tactics generally become far more bitchy.

Konami have every right to sue Roxor.
"In the Grove" wasn't just another dancing game, it was close to identical to "Dance Dance Revolution". Add to this that Konami had let it slide for almost 4years, the reason they decided to go after them is because the latest ITG was released a few months before DDR (newest one forget the name) and they'd obviously found out what was going to be in it and copied the content.

It's like someone here finding out about Quake4, and creating a Doom4 mod that was identical and rushing release to get it out first. You might change some minor things like names or such, but the levels and characters are still almost identical with the same story... do you think that Raven Software shouldn't have the right to sue you?

Seriously it was their own fault.

Intel Pentium-D 2.8GHz, 512MB DDR2 433, Ati Radeon X1600 Pro 256MB PCI-E, Windows Vista RC1 / XP Professional SP2
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 09:47 Edited at: 20th Oct 2006 09:51
Link
It's our fault.

If we went to arcades more and played DDR, then Konami would not feel the need to protect it so vohemently. DDR must be one of the very few arcade machines that made decent money, and an indi developer stealing the idea and making money from it is unacceptable.

Churning out cheap clones is something that can land you in trouble. However, some indi developers get ripped off, like Pop-Cap games, how many times have they been ripped off now, hell there's a clone of Zuma on the DS:

Zuma, PC:


Magnetica, NDS:


I've no idea if there's licensing agreements, but really I think Popcap would be far more justified than Konami.

Incidently Magnetica uses the touch screen, and is a great and addictive game, so don't let it's clonelyness put you off.

''Stick that in your text and scroll it!.''
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 11:24 Edited at: 20th Oct 2006 11:29
Link
Actually, I provided lots as I recall. You're sticking up for EA because you're an employee of the company, and that's fine and all, but I wasn't trying to make it sound as though it were ONLY EA that does these things. Dice was (at the time of the "acquisition") owned by a few friends. Some of the friends wanted to sell out to EA, and some didn't. The founding members of Digital Illusions CE were against it, saying they'd rather be they're own studio and have EA do distribution/ publishing stuff, but newer members of their team sold their shares and pretty much brought Dice to its knees... or rather, the knees of EA. What was it? somewhere between 65% and 70% of the shares at $9-something a pop if I remember correctly. And the teams founding members, the two people who said "hey, let's make some games?" Yeah, they're not under EA's employ as a direct result of the "acquisition." I'd call that a pretty dang-tootin' hostile takeover, but hey, what do I know . Oh, and Dice Canada? Where did that go again? Oh yeah, it was shut down several hours after the acquisition. At least they were cool enough to offer jobs to most (not all) of the displaced employees, but seriously, that seemed pretty unnecessary. Bullfrog was similarly murdered. And the direct result? How many people do you know who think BF42 is still the best in the series? I know tons, as does anyone who still plays BF42 online... several years after it was released, it still has new servers sprouting left and right from people who played BFV and BF2 and disliked them.

I used EA as an example because they're the most hostile of the major publishers. Ubi and Activision are pretty viscious at times, but come on Jake, even you, a loyal and dedicated employee of EAV, must acknowledge that EA is pretty darn mean about stuff. They aren't big fans of competition... a few reminders of offenses in the past:

* The afforementioned "hostile takeovers" of a number of studios... more than any other corporation that I can think of. I implore you to name one who does it more. Some companies don't mind being taken over, but there are quite a few who weren't too happy about it, and while it's true that it's their own fault for making their shares public, that's no excuse... you shouldn't have to fear other companies, and seriously, once you buy 30% of a company you have a pretty big lean on command issues within said company, and that crushes quite a few of these studios.

* The NFL deal had "evil" written all over it. An exclusive licensing deal with the NFL to keep any and all competition from even thinking about making an NFL game? So much for ESPN sports... I doubt you could argue that they set that deal in play because they were worried that ESPN might steal some of Madden's sunshine. Take 2 fought back *a little* with the MLB deal, but it certainly won't make anyone at EA Redwood lose any sleep. But it was the least they could do seeing as how EA's licensing deal slaughtered a cash cow of Take 2/ Sega/ ESPN... remember NFL 2K? A pretty major chunk of the playing public thought it was better than Madden... so instead of trying to make their product better, they make it exclusive

* Ubisoft. 'Nuff said, but I should clarify for those who don't know what I'm bringing up there. Ubi was talking about selling their company for a short while, but they made one thing extremely clear: they didn't want EA buying them. Yves Gillomet (sp?), the President (or CEO? don't remember) of Ubisoft, outlined in a number of interviews that he DID NOT want EA to buy them out, quoting it would "kill creativity." So what does EA do when they hear that he'd said that? They very hostilly eat up 20% of Ubi's shares, not because they wanted a piece of their action, but because they wanted to fire a warning shot and possibly make a bid for the entire company. Luckily for Ubi fans (the few and far between ), the French Government actually stepped in to help Ubi out of their jam. What happened to ethics and not being a jerk toward your competition just because you can afford to be?

* The Dreamcast garbage. I'm not saying the Dreamcast was a great system, but EA was pretty rancid with that deal. Basically, EA said they'd release games for the Dreamcast, but only if the console sold 1 million units. It did, within about three months or so, and presto... EA backed out at the last minute and opted to release on the PS2 instead, contributing to the Dreamcast's demise in a big way. This, if nothing else, shows that they aren't trustworthy. The dreamcast stuff... that's pretty much what turned me against EA in the first place.


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 12:14
Link
This is retarded the EA bashing.
Tell you what, you create yourself a company and try to survive in the business world.

You'll probably only ever have to worry about revenues in the millions at most... EA have to worry about it in the billions, over hundreds of companies worldwide.

Aquisitions aren't made just because they can, but often out of necessity to be able to break new markets or support a market that currently is very weak. Try taking business 101, it's not all about fair-play to get ahead of the game.

Intel Pentium-D 2.8GHz, 512MB DDR2 433, Ati Radeon X1600 Pro 256MB PCI-E, Windows Vista RC1 / XP Professional SP2
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Mnemonix
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2002
Location: Skaro
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 12:28
Link
EA in terms of being a business are great at it. Its their job as a company to make as much money as possible using whatever legal means are available. (If im wrong about this then some one with more knowledge come in and correct me ).

Im sick of people criticising companies for being companylike. Its not just like this in the games industry you know. Its just the way the business works. Alls fair in love and war

WE SHALL BECOME ALL POWERFUL! CRUSH THE LESSER RACES! CONQUER THE GALAXY! UNIMAGINABLE POWER! UNLIMITED RICE PUDDING ! ! ! ETC. ! ! ! ETC.! ! !
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 12:50
Link
I can name dozens of companies that have billion-dollar profits that don't do it in an evil way, or at least not *that* kind of evil. Just because it works doesn't mean it's the only solution. There's more than one way to tie your shoes. And seriously, I wouldn't want billions of dollars anyway... if I even made millions I'd just give most of it to charities, but that's just me... I'm not greedy and I don't see a point in undermining someone else. We've had this debate a zillion times... I'm pretty sure it's safe to say none of us are going to change our opinions. I was just trying to point out that yes, EA *does* do things that are a heck of a lot more brutal than other companies. I think it's greedy, you guys don't... this isn't exactly news lol.


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Mnemonix
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2002
Location: Skaro
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 13:21
Link
Oh I wasn't saying they aren't aggressive, or that they aren't greedy . Im just saying that thats how they choose to play it and it works for them fine.

WE SHALL BECOME ALL POWERFUL! CRUSH THE LESSER RACES! CONQUER THE GALAXY! UNIMAGINABLE POWER! UNLIMITED RICE PUDDING ! ! ! ETC. ! ! ! ETC.! ! !
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
The crazy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Behind you
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 16:52
Link
I'm glad Konami won. DDR far surpasses ITG. I've played both extensively and ITG doesn't compare.

(Note: I used to think bombs in itg were a nice feature, but they're hella annoying )

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 17:12
Link
Matt, Sorry got to disagree with you on this one pal. Its the nature of buisness, take banks for example, even about 10 years ago there were quite a few "brands" now they have been bought up by a handful of major banking groups and while not always great for the consumer it is very good for the buisness itself. As for the NFL thing you are way off, The NFL put out feelers that they wanted an exclusive contract, why, because it made them more money, they have tons of exclusive contracts from TV rights, to Pepsi(BARF), Reebok(IMO the biggest piece of junk shoes on the market), Gatorade, and countless others. If you want to blame someone for this don't blame the people with the deep pockets to pay for it blame the people who put it up for sale to begin with. Better to be absorbed by another company then be pushed out of existance (ala Walmart).

http://www.cafepress.com/blackarrowgames
Check out my great stuff here
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 20:14 Edited at: 20th Oct 2006 20:15
Link
Quote: "DO NOT sell shares publically"

Unless you have a thousand and one 'private' friends, then this advice is useless. One of the core foundations of starting any company, no matter how small, is handing out shares. (I don't imply handing them out to everyone you see, but inevitably, to take any company further, you will need an external stock holder of some form)

Well, I finally decided to create a website that really reflects what kind of programmer I really are: OneManBand software: http://www.ombsoft.com
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 20:51 Edited at: 20th Oct 2006 20:55
Link
Quote: "However, some indi developers get ripped off, like Pop-Cap games, how many times have they been ripped off now, hell there's a clone of Zuma on the DS:"


Actually Zuma was a ripoff of an old arcade game series (I used to play it all the time). I forget the name now, but it's almost exactly the same, minus the Aztec theme.

Quote: "You're sticking up for EA because you're an employee of the company"


Like I said before (verbatim)--- I was on this side for as long as I can remember.

Quote: "At least they were cool enough to offer jobs to most (not all) of the displaced employees, but seriously, that seemed pretty unnecessary."


How so? Did YOU take a look at their bank books? Their accounting? Their profitability? If the company is good where it is, they WON'T shut it down. Look at Blackbox--- it's owned by EA and hasn't moved. Obviously the EA execs know when to close down or keep up.

Quote: "but come on Jake, even you, a loyal and dedicated employee of EAV, must acknowledge that EA is pretty darn mean about stuff."


Actually no, I don't acknowledge "meanness" when it comes to business practice. Life isn't fair, and you should know that living in New York. There's no pixie that's flying around making sure everyone plays nice. This is the real world, and what you consider "mean" is called business. What is EAV by the way? You are just making things up

Quote: "I implore you to name one who does it more."


Microsoft, AT&T, Logitech, Google, IBM--- do you want me to keep naming?

Quote: "So much for ESPN sports... I doubt you could argue that they set that deal in play because they were worried that ESPN might steal some of Madden's sunshine."


Oh my, you're too funny. EA also acquired the ESPN license in a deal shortly after And I want to let you know something you obviously haven't discovered--- NFL has the CHOICE to sell out. I don't know where you get this perception that companies can just buy deals and acquire without the other company wanting it. So funny.

Quote: "Luckily for Ubi fans (the few and far between )"


I still can't tell if you're serious or taking the piss out of anyone with half a brain, but these kind of statements show that you don't know much about the game industry. Ubisoft is wildly successful and popular, and has a large fanbase. And like I said before, how did EA purchase 20%? Because Ubi is traded on the PUBLIC MARKET. Why? To RAISE CAPITAL. I truly do not feel bad for them. Funny how you don't give a stink about the companies Ubi has sucked under its wing Picking and choosing your fights are you?

Quote: "EA backed out at the last minute and opted to release on the PS2 instead, contributing to the Dreamcast's demise in a big way."


How about this slant? EA pulled out because it predicted the system was going to bomb, and that the PS2 would be king? EA learned their lesson with the 3DO, so in my opinion that was a SMART move. Mind you, I've never heard this "story", ever, but I'm not surprised given you're telling it.

Quote: "Im sick of people criticising companies for being companylike. Its not just like this in the games industry you know. Its just the way the business works. Alls fair in love and war"


Amen to that!

Quote: "I wouldn't want billions of dollars anyway... if I even made millions I'd just give most of it to charities, but that's just me"


Do you want a cookie? I don't see why you bothered putting this in.


http://www.codercafe.com - My blog
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 21:01 Edited at: 20th Oct 2006 21:02
Link
Quote: "Microsoft, AT&T, Logitech, Google, IBM--- do you want me to keep naming?"


Right on except for AT&T, they have fallen from superpower to getting munched up by SBC. Verizon on the other hand grew up and is taking its place. AT&T's downfall, due to shareholders who wanted immediate profit rather than waiting for Armstrong's long term vision to pay off (A vision that included Comcast, what is now Cingular, and Verizon all as one company under AT&T, Idiots!!)

http://www.cafepress.com/blackarrowgames
Check out my great stuff here
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Grog Grueslayer
Valued Member
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th May 2005
Playing: Green Hell
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 21:26
Link
I still can't forgive EA for what they did to Origin. Buy up the company, create a stressful environment by forcing deadlines despite bugs, take over Ultima Online and screw with an established genre by bringing in Ninjas, stop Origins every attempt to make another single player Ultima, fire the former head of Origin (Richard Garriott), then finally fire everybody else.

Or what Sierra did to Dynamix. That was just to "steal" their code. After Sierra took over Dynamix all of a sudden they started selling 256 color games (before Sierra was only making 16 color games). After taking over Dynamix they went on to gobble up 12 more companies.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 21:35
Link
It's common practice in the industry. Obviously EA decided that a new Ultima game wouldn't sell--- the same reason why Sierra and LucasArts do not make adventure games anymore. You can't blame them for that, but you CAN blame gamers for losing interest.

http://www.codercafe.com - My blog
Ben Stein's Christmas Thoughts
Back to top
Profile PM Website
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 21:42
Link
Quote: "Or what Sierra did to Dynamix. That was just to "steal" their code. After Sierra took over Dynamix all of a sudden they started selling 256 color games (before Sierra was only making 16 color games). After taking over Dynamix they went on to gobble up 12 more companies."


Personally, I thank Sierra for that. Dynamix made horribly clunky software apps in the first place, so it didn't really get any worse

Well, I finally decided to create a website that really reflects what kind of programmer I really are: OneManBand software: http://www.ombsoft.com
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ron Erickson
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 22:02
Link
Quote: "Personally, I thank Sierra for that. Dynamix made horribly clunky software apps in the first place, so it didn't really get any worse"


Dynamix made an AWESOME football game that was way ahead of anything else at the time.

EZrotate!
TextureMax!
3D Character Maker!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Cash Curtis II
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Apr 2005
Location: Corpus Christi Texas
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 22:46
Link
I love Ultima. I think that Richard Garriot, crazed game visionary though he was, wasn't a good businessman. He was too self absorved and eccentric for his own good.

Now, EAs decision to discontinue Ultima X did seem odd to me. I mean, if they'd pulled off a 3D version of UO, it would have been successful, just as UO was. I don't like that decision at all.

However, all of the other EA bashing is pointless. They're a company, and in this industry if you aren't smart and aggressive you'll go under. Anyone that says money isn't important has no business trying to independently do anything, because you and anyone around you will stay poor. You don't have to be corrupt, but you have to be smart, fast, and emotionally uninvolved with the business side of things.

Also, saying that you should never sell shares is silly. Private companies simply can't generate the capital to expand and compete commercially. It's not nice, it can be ugly, but that's just one reality of business.


Come see the WIP!
Back to top
Profile PM
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 22:47
Link
By EAV, I meant EA Vancouver I thought that was kinda obvious, hehe. Anyway, like I said before, nothing is going to change here... I think it's evil, you don't think it's wrong in any way, we've been over this a zillion times. And yes, I know that life is unfair, especially with all the crummy stuff I've been through this year, but that's the sort of thing a bully would say right before stealing a kid's lunch money... fine, life is unfair, but that's no excuse for helping to make it unfair. But anyway, the fundamental difference between EA and Ubi (besides the obvious bank rolls) is that EA tends to muscle their way around a lot more. Like the Ubi thing... they pretty much bought those out of spite. I personally think that's wrong, but again, I don't run a multi-billion dollar corporation, and hopefully I never will

I understand that the NFL had an option as to whether or not they were going to go through with the deal, I never said otherwise. My problem with it is that it was designed to destroy the Take 2/ Sega/ ESPN series of NFL 2K games. NFL 2K5 was arguably better than the Madden game released that same year, and the sales were a serious threat to EA's Madden series, so what do they do? They make it exclusive to kill their competition, regardless of what the gamers wanted. Take 2 and Sega *combined* couldn't afford to wrestle with EA (I mean really, who can?), and with those two companies against the ropes and down on the cards, whose going to argue with ESPN for switching sides? But anyway, this hurt the gamers who loved the 2K franchise, which is now thoroughly dead, and there's a lot of people who think NFL 2K was better than Madden (until this most recent one came out, which as far as I know has been hailed as the king of football games). Anyway, point is, that sort of blatent disregard for what gamers actually want/ enjoy is pretty much the heart and soul of why I dislike EA, that and the (imo) crummy business stuff.

About the Dreamcast stuff: I figured that if anyone else knew about it, you would. look at the wikipedia entry for EA or Dreamcast, I'm willing to bet money there's something in one of those about it (too lazy to look myself but I didn't just "make it up").


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 20th Oct 2006 23:04
Link
Quote: "My problem with it is that it was designed to destroy the Take 2/ Sega/ ESPN series of NFL 2K games."


That's called business. Why did Bill Gates originally propose to release Halo 3 the same day PS3 would arrive? To take sales from Sony. Why does Wal-Mart open up shop right next to K-Mart or The Bay? To run them out of business. Business is just as much about selling goods as it is about running other people out of business. That's the name of the game.

Quote: "NFL 2K5 was arguably better than the Madden game released that same year, and the sales were a serious threat to EA's Madden series"


I'm no football fan, so I can't say whether the NK5 series was better (and yes I heard it was), but if you think the sales were a serious threat to EA's Madden series then you need to do some more research. Madden is North America's largest selling sports series--- by a WIDE margin.

And nothing's stopping other companies from releasing football games without NFL license. AFAIK there are many companies doing just that, and adding extra gameplay spins that you couldn't do with the NFL license.

Quote: "Anyway, point is, that sort of blatent disregard for what gamers actually want/ enjoy is pretty much the heart and soul of why I dislike EA"


Wait a second. If EA had blatant disregard for what gamers actually want, then they would be out of business, pure and simple. Obviously gamers are buying EA games in leaps and bounds, and enjoying them. Hell, I just played the new Need for Speed Carbon demo on the 360 and it was crazy fun, so I know why EA stays in business. The Godfather, another great example of a great movie license done perfect. NFS Most Wanted, BF2142 (rave reviews), NHL 07, Spore, Command and Conquer--- those are popular and highly successful (or soon to be successful) titles. Obviously this is what gamers want, otherwise EA would switch gears.

Seriously, one has to wonder where you get your common sense from (no offense )

http://www.codercafe.com - My blog
Ben Stein's Christmas Thoughts
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 21st Oct 2006 00:49
Link
Quote: "understand that the NFL had an option as to whether or not they were going to go through with the deal, I never said otherwise. My problem with it is that it was designed to destroy the Take 2/ Sega/ ESPN series of NFL 2K games."


The NFL proposed the deal, if EA had not bought the license someone else would have. So it was EA who had to make a decision to purchase the exclusive rights or themselves be forced to make a non NFL football game, how the hell can you blame them for that? It is just like any other contract, if a construction crew wins a bid to make a bridge do you blame them for hogging the rights? It may have had the side effect of killing sales of other titles, which I am sure is one of the reasons they bought the rights, but if I had spent the money they have to brand the Madden name I sure as hell would not want to scrap the series if I could help it. And for non NFL games one of the best I ever played was NES football, it had all the players (with slightly modified names in many cases) and the teams were fictional but it was still a great game for its time. The NFL brand may help but it is no guarantee of a good game.

http://www.cafepress.com/blackarrowgames
Check out my great stuff here
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 21st Oct 2006 01:55
Link
Hobgoblin Lord is right in that if EA didn't do it, another company (possibly Take 2) would have. If you are selling a service, are you not going to sell it to the highest bidder? Of course.

http://www.codercafe.com - My blog
Ben Stein's Christmas Thoughts
Back to top
Profile PM Website
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 21st Oct 2006 19:09 Edited at: 21st Oct 2006 19:09
Link
Quote: "If EA had blatant disregard for what gamers actually want, then they would be out of business"


Maybe it's just me, but I don't buy a game simply because it is a certain publisher who published it; I buy a game because its by a developer which I like, or the game looks good etc. etc.

If anything, having the game published by someone like EA is an unwanted by-product if anything; so it's not necessarily the case that EA still has customers because it treats them right - its because they just happen to publish the games that people want. It really wouldn't make any difference if it was published by a different publisher - people would still buy.

Well, I finally decided to create a website that really reflects what kind of programmer I really are: OneManBand software: http://www.ombsoft.com
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 24th Oct 2006 04:12
Link
Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment...

Say a small company wants a cash injection so it decides to sell shares. Would it be fare for it to descriminate on who can buy these shares?
If they did, would it be fare for them to tell the purchasers who they can and can't sell those shares on to?

Its only natural to route for the underdog, but you have to remember that the big companies had to start somewhere too, often as underdogs themselves. They grew because they wanted to expand, make better products, make more products, deliver them to a wider audience and have the financial security to be able to survive if products fail. In order to get to this stage, sometimes you have to get rid of competitors or absorb them to make your products better.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 24th Oct 2006 04:34
Link
Yah, just think about what EA has done for the industry, and how they started. Trip Hawkins devised the Madden game himself, and it was one of the first licensed sports games. EA also coined the term producer in the industry, and celebrated the game designers in advertisements. This was at a time when many programmers weren't even credited at all in games. EA helped push the industry away from that nonsense.

http://www.codercafe.com - My blog
Ben Stein's Christmas Thoughts
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 24th Oct 2006 08:09
Link
Quote: "I would just challenge Konami to a dance-off"

Dancing? sued? lost? Someone has to say it.....


ROXOR GOT SERVED!

"Using Unix is the computing equivalent of listening only to music by David Cassidy" - Rob Pike
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 24th Oct 2006 10:06
Link
Come on, an official NFL game - it must have taken years to come up with that game idea!

Since that day EA has squandered every sports licence it can get it's mitt's on - so it can re-sell sports games to us over and over and over and over. EA is where it is by sealing up licences for the major sports, let's not forget that better sports games are out there, just without the familiar faces that EA can afford.

Personally I like some EA games, and they have made a huge impact on the industry, but none of my favourite games are by EA. Black was great for the first few levels, then like a typical EA game it get's mind numbing before level 6. With their resources, they should be producing the best games out there, but they don't.

If it sells, EA will make it, forget innovation - that's EA's mission statement recently. It did not start out like this - remember the transitions from 2D to 3D, that was a massive leap forward, 10 years on? - they're making the same freakin games.

EA should be pushing innovative ideas from smaller teams or even solo developers, instead of throwing them on the EA production lines. When a corporation like EA consuming smaller developers rather than helping them prosper - then it's just a sucking chest wound in our industry IMO.

''Stick that in your text and scroll it!.''
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 24th Oct 2006 11:23
Link
I would agree with you, up until this year that is. EA is making large strides in innovation--- one just has to look at Spore and Army of Two to see that.

But EA has a negative stigma, and I really couldn't care less what people say about it. I've heard the same arguments, again and again "Oh, EA just reskins the same sports games year after year!" Well that's bollocks. And again, one only has to look at their huge advancement in the NHL series this year to see proof.

Quote: "Come on, an official NFL game - it must have taken years to come up with that game idea!"


Laugh if you must, but if you read the history of the franchise it's rather interesting. EA's roots didn't start *any* different than any other small company's roots. It's just EA had some smart people who knew what people wanted and delivered.

And yes, I'd say this about them no matter who I worked for.

http://www.codercafe.com - My blog
Ben Stein's Christmas Thoughts
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 24th Oct 2006 11:53
Link
I will look at those games, I try to keep an open mind. Just because it's EA, doesn't mean I'll avoind their games, heck I'll be ordering BF2142 this week - it's just with a company like EA, there's always one side to hate, and one side to appreciate. If EA doesn't like it then they should make themselves smaller .

But, bear in mind that I'm a customer, if I think Fifa sucks then that's based on playing Fifa since it started as isometric - so it's not bollocks in my opinion, unless my opinion counts for nothing after 25 years playing football videogames. I do like the NHL titles, because Hockey is really fast paced and the game rules are quite straightforward, fast learning curve and with the bonus violence it's really the ideal sports videogame. Also, multiplayer works a lot better with hockey, football is terrible with more than 2 players.

Thing is, there's nothing to compare EA's NHL games to, the same can't be said for Fifa, Pro Evolution Soccer just seems to be getting better. EA will want the players looking just like the players, Pro Evo is more about the gameplay.

I know that's just one EA game, but it's the one I've seen the most of over the years - if they developed the gameplay as much as the players appearance then I'd have more respect for them. Fifa is sold to football fans, Pro Evo is sold to gamers. There's like 20 incarnations of Fifa now - there's just not enough innovation to spread over that many titles IMO - I don't call adding arcade style fireballs and crap like that innovation, Tiger Woods can't control the ball in mid air, no stuntman can control a car in mid air, no footballer can control a ball in flight - but these are EA's so-called innovations.

''Stick that in your text and scroll it!.''
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-17 18:55:48
Your offset time is: 2024-11-17 18:55:48